Author
Topic: Roman Acceptance of the Council of 879-80 as Ecumenical (Read 20323 times)

This thread has been split from the "Councils Ecumenical or Otherwise" topic.

It has been designated "sticky" because of references concerning important Orthodox beliefs about the filioque, Holy Tradition, conciliar unity and other questions.

Pravoslavbob, Religious Topics Moderator

Actually the Second Ecumenical Council forbid changes to half the Creed - that which was made at Nicaea. The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879 forbid changes to the entire Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed as it abrogated the council of 869 (which had inserted the filioque). Seems the rub is the west forgot it accepted 879 before it rejected, or forgot it.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 04:48:22 PM by FrChris »

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Actually the Second Ecumenical Council forbid changes to half the Creed - that which was made at Nicaea. The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879 forbid changes to the entire Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed as it abrogated the council of 869 (which had inserted the filioque). Seems the rub is the west forgot it accepted 879 before it rejected, or forgot it.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church holds that the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869 is Ecumenical and not the one in 879.

Also, since when does the Orthodox Church recognize more than Seven Ecumenical Councils?

Also, as far as I know, the assertion of the Councils meant to preclude alteration to the Universal Creed of Nicea-Constantinople aside from an Ecumenical Council. And the Catholic Church went through the route of and Ecumenical Council with the Second Council of Lyons.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 04:48:40 PM by FrChris »

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

Also, since when does the Orthodox Church recognize more than Seven Ecumenical Councils?

This has been covered in the past here. Try a search.

Quote

Also, as far as I know, the assertion of the Councils meant to preclude alteration to the Universal Creed of Nicea-Constantinople aside from an Ecumenical Council. And the Catholic Church went through the route of and Ecumenical Council with the Second Council of Lyons.

Again, re-read the article. You are expounding the Frankish historical revision (and know full well what we think of Lyons).As far as I'm concerned the schism occurred de facto here in the ninth century.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I have tried also to explain why the Ignatian Council had been added in the West to the list as the Eighth Ecumenical. This happened during the reign of Gregory VII, who had opened the Lateran archives to his canonists who were looking for new arguments for the papal primacy and who were against the intervention of laymen in the appointment of bishops and abbots. They needed a strongly worded official document which they could use in their fight against the investiture, or appointment of clergy to ecclesiastical dignities by influential laymen. They found such a document in Canon twenty-two voted by the Ignatian Council, which forbade laymen to influence the appointment of prelates. All canonists and reformists of the Gregorian period used this canon as their most powerful weapon in their struggle for the freedom of the Church in the election of prelates. To give more weight to this argument they promoted the Ignatian Council to one of the most important ecumenical synods, overlooking the Acts of the Photian Council which had cancelled the Council of 869-70, although the Acts of this council were also kept in the Lateran Archives.

Please read the rest of this article, published in 1966 by the famed RC priest Fr. Francis Dvornik. He very clearly indicates that actually your church adopted the Council of 879, but later stated that they had adopted the Council of 869...and I'll let you read the reasons why, since the reasons only buttress the allegations of historical revisionism that are being discussed in a different thread.

Next, Fr George Dragas has an excellent paper that was published in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol 44, Nos. 1-4, 1999, pp. 357-369 (it is available electronically, but I do not have a web address for it). In the article it shows that actually there are 8 councils...specifically the Council of 879, which was adopted by Rome and condemned the filioque, is referred to as being the 8th Council.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll come across Fr Dragas' excellent paper!

« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 11:36:26 AM by FrChris »

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Next, Fr George Dragas has an excellent paper that was published in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol 44, Nos. 1-4, 1999, pp. 357-369 (it is available electronically, but I do not have a web address for it). In the article it shows that actually there are 8 councils...specifically the Council of 879, which was adopted by Rome and condemned the filioque, is referred to as being the 8th Council.

Your paltry assay of my intelligence notwithstanding, you on one hand direct my attention to an article that you claim will prove your point and on the other hand direct my attention which appears to contradict another of your points (more than Seven Ecumenical Councils).

Again, re-read the article. You are expounding the Frankish historical revision (and know full well what we think of Lyons).

I think we're all aware of what the Orthodox think of the Council of Lyons. Be that as it may, the Catholic Church (the Church I place my full loyalty and faith in as THE Church) declares Lyons to be a valid Ecumenical Council.

Please read the rest of this article, published in 1966 by the famed RC priest Fr. Francis Dvornik. He very clearly indicates that actually your church adopted the Council of 879, but later stated that they had adopted the Council of 869...and I'll let you read the reasons why, since the reasons only buttress the allegations of historical revisionism that are being discussed in a different thread.

I read it in full later, if I have time. Giving it just a quick glance, I see nothing that indicates the the Catholic Church ever officially recognized the Council of 879 as an Ecumenical Council. I see nothing that indicates the same of the Orthodox Church.

The fact that the Council of 869 was not immediately and officially recognized as Ecumenical until centuries later (if that is indeed the case) does not prove or disprove anything. The Second Ecumenical Council was not officially declared Ecumenical until 70 years later at the Council of Chalcedon.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

Seriously, I think I was vaguely cognizant of that fact, but you are the first to direct me to an article here.

Then apparently you did not bother to read my post immediately prior to Fr Chris's - you know.. the "paltry" one

Quote

I read it in full later, if I have time. Giving it just a quick glance, I see nothing that indicates the the Catholic Church ever officially recognized the Council of 879 as an Ecumenical Council. I see nothing that indicates the same of the Orthodox Church.

You don't wish your intelligence questioned but seem not to understand the article by one of your own.

Quote

The fact that the Council of 869 was not immediately and officially recognized as Ecumenical until centuries later (if that is indeed the case) does not prove or disprove anything. The Second Ecumenical Council was not officially declared Ecumenical until 70 years later at the Council of Chalcedon.

Now that's dodging the issue. LMAO

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I read it in full later, if I have time. Giving it just a quick glance, I see nothing that indicates the the Catholic Church ever officially recognized the Council of 879 as an Ecumenical Council. I see nothing that indicates the same of the Orthodox Church.

Fine...I'll do your reading for you.

The article on our website points out that:

Quote

The Council of 869-870 which had condemned Photius and his followers was abrogated.

This means that the Council of 869 was essentially removed from the history books, and should not even be listed as a Council.

The seventh paragraph of this article reads:

Quote

The Photian Council was also convoked by the Emperor Basil I, and representatives of all five patriarchs were present together with 380 Fathers. The Fathers were thus fully entitled to designate the assembly as a “holy and ecumenical synod.”

The case of the Eighth Ecumenical Council provides the occasion not only for clarifying this divergence, but also for indicating the arbitrary conciliar development of the Church of Rome after its separation from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. For Roman Catholics the Eighth Ecumenical Council is a Council that was held in Constantinople in 869/870 — also known as the Ignatian Council, because it restored Ignatios to the Patriarchal throne — which among other matters procured the condemnation of Ecumenical Patriarch Photios. It is clearly confirmed by modern scholarship, however, that this Ignatian Council was rejected by another Constantinopolitan Council which was held exactly ten years later in 879/880. This Council is also known as the Photian Council, because it exonerated and restored to the Throne of Constantinople St. Photios and his fellow Hierarchs and was signed by both Easterners and Westerners. How did it happen that Roman Catholics came to ignore this conciliar fact? Following Papadopoulos Kerameus, Johan Meijer — author of a most thorough study of the Constantinopolitan Council of 879/880 — has pointed out that Roman Catholic canonists first referred to their Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Ignatian one) in the beginning of the twelfth century. In line with Dvornic and others, Meijer also explained that this was done deliberately because these canonists needed at that time canon 22 of that Council. In point of fact, however, they overlooked the fact that "this Council had been cancelled by another, the Photian Synod of 879-880 — the acts of which were also kept in the pontifical archives." It is interesting to note that later on the Roman Catholics called this Photian Council "Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum", thereby acknowledging it implicitly as another Eighth Council rival to that of their own choice!

(bolded text mine)

The fact of the matter is that this 'Council of 869' was not 'recognized as being Ecumenical centuries later' as you wrote...it was condemned 10 years after it was held! Unfortunately, you have not been taught that, and you seem reluctant to do the investigation needed to dispell this inaccuracy.

This 'council of 869' was 'resurrected' by the church in Rome, and then only because they needed a particular canonical provision in yet another example of historical revisionism...oh, but that's another thread.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2008, 04:05:59 PM by FrChris »

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

How? One claim is that the Catholic Church is wrong because She didn't recognize the Council of 869 as Ecumenical until many years later. I showed another case where that occurred that the Orthodox have no qualms about.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

The Photian Council was also convoked by the Emperor Basil I, and representatives of all five patriarchs were present together with 380 Fathers. The Fathers were thus fully entitled to designate the assembly as a “holy and ecumenical synod.”

The Robber Council of Ephesus was convened as a "holy and ecumenical synod" and all the Eastern Patriarchs were represented. The Pope sent a legate, but it appears that he either never arrived or was cast out - which the Council of Chalcedon noted.

The case of the Eighth Ecumenical Council provides the occasion not only for clarifying this divergence, but also for indicating the arbitrary conciliar development of the Church of Rome after its separation from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. For Roman Catholics the Eighth Ecumenical Council is a Council that was held in Constantinople in 869/870 — also known as the Ignatian Council, because it restored Ignatios to the Patriarchal throne — which among other matters procured the condemnation of Ecumenical Patriarch Photios. It is clearly confirmed by modern scholarship, however, that this Ignatian Council was rejected by another Constantinopolitan Council which was held exactly ten years later in 879/880. This Council is also known as the Photian Council, because it exonerated and restored to the Throne of Constantinople St. Photios and his fellow Hierarchs and was signed by both Easterners and Westerners. How did it happen that Roman Catholics came to ignore this conciliar fact? Following Papadopoulos Kerameus, Johan Meijer — author of a most thorough study of the Constantinopolitan Council of 879/880 — has pointed out that Roman Catholic canonists first referred to their Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Ignatian one) in the beginning of the twelfth century. In line with Dvornic and others, Meijer also explained that this was done deliberately because these canonists needed at that time canon 22 of that Council. In point of fact, however, they overlooked the fact that "this Council had been cancelled by another, the Photian Synod of 879-880 — the acts of which were also kept in the pontifical archives." It is interesting to note that later on the Roman Catholics called this Photian Council "Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum", thereby acknowledging it implicitly as another Eighth Council rival to that of their own choice!

(bolded text mine)

The Council of Chalcedon was rejected by the Oriental Orthodox in another Alexandrian Council. How is it that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox came to ignore this conciliar fact?

The fact of the matter is that this 'Council of 869' was not 'recognized as being Ecumenical centuries later' as you wrote...it was condemned 10 years after it was held! Unfortunately, you have not been taught that, and you seem reluctant to do the investigation needed to dispell this inaccuracy.

This 'council of 869' was 'resurrected' by the church in Rome, and then only because they needed a particular canonical provision in yet another example of historical revisionism...oh, but that's another thread.

No, the Catholic Church never officially accepted the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. Therefore, whatever was said there is not binding on the Universal Church. As for being accepted only centuries later, see my above comments.

How? One claim is that the Catholic Church is wrong because She didn't recognize the Council of 869 as Ecumenical until many years later. I showed another case where that occurred that the Orthodox have no qualms about.

Please refresh my memory about which councils your belated acceptance was received without qualms by us. You are so mired in the Frankish revisions.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

No, just not listed as an Ecumenical Council. Again, I see nothing that indicates that it was ever officially accepted as an Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church. ...

No, the Catholic Church never officially accepted the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. Therefore, whatever was said there is not binding on the Universal Church. As for being accepted only centuries later, see my above comments.

The history of this Constantinopolitan Council, which has left its mark on the career of Ecumenical Patriarch Photios, one of the greatest Patriarchs of the Great Church of Christ, has been thoroughly researched by modern historians. Dvornic's pioneering work has restored the basic facts. Meijer in 1975, Phidas in 1994 and Siamakis in 1995 have refined these facts. There is no doubt to anyone who surveys this literature that the Roman Catholic position is untenable. The Photian Council of 879/880 is that which: i) annulled the Ignatian one (869/70), ii) enumerated the Seventh (787) adding it to the previous Six, iii) restored unity to the Church of Constantinople itself and to the Churches of Old and New Rome, which had been shattered by the arbitrary interference of the popes of Rome in the life of the Eastern Church especially through the Ignatian Council, and iv) laid down the canonical and theological basis of the union of the Church in East and West through its Horos.

The Council of 879, as has been pointed out, abrogated the earlier council of 869 with this provision agreed to by the Roman legates and by the Pope later, because without this Council the Photian Schism would not have been healed. If your statement were correct, then the Photian Schism would never have been remedied and the Great Schism would have occurred in 869 instead of (technically) 1054.

Additionally, because this council ennumerated the 7th, if you cast out this Council of 879, then you also remove any justification for the 7th Council being considered as Ecumenical.

Finally, your own Pope condemned the Council of 869, as is shown in footnote 7 of the Dragas article:

Quote

The condemnation of the Roman Catholic Eighth Council (the anti-Photian Council of Constantinople of 869/70) by Pope John VIII is first given in this Pope's Letter to the Emperors Basil, Leo and Alexander. In this Letter which was read at the second session of the Photian Council of Constantinople of 879/80 and is included in the second Act of the Minutes, Pope John VIII writes: "And first of all receive Photios the most amazing and most reverend High-Priest of God our Brother Patriarch and co-celebrant who is co-sharer, co-participant and inheritor of the communion which is in the Holy Church of the Romans... receive the man unpretentiously. No one should behave pretentiously [following] the unjust councils which were made against him. No one. as it seems right to many who behave like a herd of cows, should use the negative votes of the blessed Hierarchs who preceded us. Nicholas, I mean, and Hadrian as an excuse [to oppose him]; since they did not prove what had been cunningly concocted against him... Everything that was done against him has now ceased and been banished..." (The Latin text is this Ac primum quidem a nobis suscipi Photium praetantissimum ac reverentissimum Dei Pontificem et Patriarcham, in fratrem nostrum et comministrum, eundemque communionis cum sancta Romana ecclesia participem, consortem, et haeredem... Suscipite virum sine aliqua exrusatione. Nemo praetexat eas quae contra ipsum factae sunt innjustas synodos. Nemo, ut plerisque videtur imperitis ac rudibis, decessorum nostrorum beatorum Pontificum, Nicolai inquam, et Hadriani, decreta culpet... Finita sunt enim omnia, repudiata omnia, quae adversus cum gesta sunt, infirma irritaquae reddita... Mansi vol xvii, cls. 400D & 401BC. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 281f).

A similar condemnation is found in Pope John VIII's Letter to Photios where he writes: "As for the Synod that was summoned against your Reverence we have annulled here and have completely banished, and have ejected [it from our archives], because of the other causes and because our blessed predecessor Pope Hadrian did not subscribe to it..." (Latin text: Synodum vero, quae contra tuam reverentiam ibidem est habita, rescidimus, damnavimus omnino, et abjecimus: tum ob alias causas, tum quo decessor noster beatus Papa Hadrianus in ea non subscripsit..." Mansi vol. xvii cl. 416E. For the Greek see Dositheos op. cit. p. 292).

Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.

The bolded line is critical, as you continue to fall into the trap that Fr Dragas saw: you are offering confusing and disputed information about the unanimous condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

The Council of 879, as has been pointed out, abrogated the earlier council of 869 with this provision agreed to by the Roman legates and by the Pope later, because without this Council the Photian Schism would not have been healed. If your statement were correct, then the Photian Schism would never have been remedied and the Great Schism would have occurred in 869 instead of (technically) 1054.

Additionally, because this council ennumerated the 7th, if you cast out this Council of 879, then you also remove any justification for the 7th Council being considered as Ecumenical.

Finally, your own Pope condemned the Council of 869, as is shown in footnote 7 of the Dragas article:

The bolded line is critical, as you continue to fall into the trap that Fr Dragas saw: you are offering confusing and disputed information about the unanimous condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869.

I have read both articles. I have not seen anything in them that supports the notion that the Catholic Church every considered the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. Indeed, the Orthodox Church doesn't even unanimously (or even the majority) accept it as Ecumenical.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

The Council of 879, as has been pointed out, abrogated the earlier council of 869 with this provision agreed to by the Roman legates and by the Pope later, because without this Council the Photian Schism would not have been healed. If your statement were correct, then the Photian Schism would never have been remedied and the Great Schism would have occurred in 869 instead of (technically) 1054.

as well as the point brought out by Fr Dragas in his footnote, which you have not responded to:

Quote

I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.

Or, better yet, here's yet more proof showing how the Council of 879 originally was accepted by Rome until it was too inconvenient:

The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880 was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (Pope John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Saint Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by the Emperor Basil I. This council condemned any 'additions' to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople, condemned anyone who denied the legitimacy of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and its decree on icons, and contained an agreement that patriarchates would not interfere in each others' internal affairs. This council was regarded by (Old) Rome (present-day Rome) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council until the eleventh century. At that time, Roman Catholicism found it more convenient to replace it with a council held in Constantinople in 869 (a council that was never accepted in the East and was condemned by the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879-880). It was at that time that Old Rome began to use the heretical Filioque in the Creed. They could no longer embrace a council which condemned that which they did.

(bolded text mine)

Or, how about this quote from page 323 of Abbe Guettee's The Papacy, 1867 edition:

The acts of the council of 879 have been found in the original in Rome itself, with all the authentic signatures, including those of the legates of Rome; and yet the ecclesiastical historians of the West insinuate that they may have been altered. On the other hand, the acts of the council of 869 were lost by the Roman legates, and are only known through Anastasius the librarian, who pretended to have a copy; and the Western historians will not allow of a doubt to their genuineness.

Or, this quote from page 185 of Henry Chadwick's book East and West: The Making of a Rift In the Church

So what if the Council of 879 condemned the Council of 869. There have been many Councils that have condemned Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Chalcedon was condemned at an Alexandrian Synod - but you still consider the Council of Chalcedon as Ecumenical.

I also have seen no where that the Council of 879 was ever officially accepted as an Ecumenical Council. Indeed I have seen scholars, especially Eastern Orthodox, "offer confusing and even disputed information" about the ecumenicity of the Council of 879. Your own Church hasn't even ever officially accepted the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. So at best it was a Regional Synod whose decisions are not binding on the entire Church.

Certainly it is undisputed that the Council of 869 wasn't officially accepted as Ecumenical until a couple centuries later, but many Councils have waited copious amounts of time for such an acceptance.

I ask - what are your criterion for judging a Council to be Ecumenical? Do the Orthodox even have criteria to make such a determination?

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

So what if the Council of 879 condemned the Council of 869. There have been many Councils that have condemned Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Chalcedon was condemned at an Alexandrian Synod - but you still consider the Council of Chalcedon as Ecumenical.

I also have seen no where that the Council of 879 was ever officially accepted as an Ecumenical Council. Indeed I have seen scholars, especially Eastern Orthodox, "offer confusing and even disputed information" about the ecumenicity of the Council of 879. Your own Church hasn't even ever officially accepted the Council of 879 as Ecumenical. So at best it was a Regional Synod whose decisions are not binding on the entire Church.

Certainly it is undisputed that the Council of 869 wasn't officially accepted as Ecumenical until a couple centuries later, but many Councils have waited copious amounts of time for such an acceptance.

I ask - what are your criterion for judging a Council to be Ecumenical? Do the Orthodox even have criteria to make such a determination?

Apples and Oranges. Chalcedon was accepted by the EO, then later rejected by a minority. 869 wasn't accepted by the EO, and then was further rejected by 879.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I ask - what are your criterion for judging a Council to be Ecumenical? Do the Orthodox even have criteria to make such a determination?

Yes, an Imperial Synod summoned by the Emperor that was subsequently upheld as an Imperial Synod also summoned by the Emperor. They very word 'ecumenical' is from Imperial terminology, it was a synod that held the undisputed authority of the Empire. Thus we had 'ecumenical' Emperors, 'ecumenical' synods, 'ecumenical' fathers, 'ecumenical' patriarchs, an 'ecumenical' Church, 'ecumenical' barbers, etc. An 'ecumenical' synod is simply a synod that is consonant with the consensus of the bishops of the Empire.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I ask - what are your criterion for judging a Council to be Ecumenical? Do the Orthodox even have criteria to make such a determination?

Athanasios,

At this point I am going to ask you to stop obfuscating or trying to divert attention from Fr Chris's questions and to respond to them in a forthright and courteous manner. (That is, don't respond to his post with a question about Chalcedon when his post concerns the Council of 879-80.) Also, please do not suggest that the Orthodox do not have the means to determine what is or what is not an Ecumenical Council, especially not on an Orthodox forum. Please respond to Fr Chris's posts to the best of your ability within 48 hours or further action may have to be taken. If you feel that you are in over your head then there is no shame in saying so, but I will not tolerate slights against a site administrator (or any other poster, for that matter) who has gone to great lengths to present a cogent and coherent argument to back up his (courteous) assertions.

Apples and Oranges. Chalcedon was accepted by the EO, then later rejected by a minority. 869 wasn't accepted by the EO, and then was further rejected by 879.

Some did, some didn't. The main divisive issue was whether Photius or Ignatius should be Patriarch of Constantinople. And each had their own loyal group of support. Regardless of who was right or wrong, that issue was settled in 879 when Photius was determined to be the Patriarch. Of course Ignatius dying in 878 didn't help his chances of remaining in authority . As far as I know, the issue was resolved going into the Council of 879, with the Council being a formality.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

At this point I am going to ask you to stop obfuscating or trying to divert attention from Fr Chris's questions and to respond to them in a forthright and courteous manner. (That is, don't respond to his post with a question about Chalcedon when his post concerns the Council of 879-80.) Also, please do not suggest that the Orthodox do not have the means to determine what is or what is not an Ecumenical Council, especially not on an Orthodox forum. Please respond to Fr Chris's posts to the best of your ability within 48 hours or further action may have to be taken. If you feel that you are in over your head then there is no shame in saying so, but I will not tolerate slights against a site administrator (or any other poster, for that matter) who has gone to great lengths to present a cogent and coherent argument to back up his (courteous) assertions.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Pravoslavbob

I certainly didn't mean to offend. I was (and am still trying) to answer the question from Father Chris. Perhaps I am still missing the question he is trying to ask.

My use of the question of Chalcedon was to attempt to give an analogous example to the question at hand. My question on the determination of ecumenicity is not to take a jab at Orthodoxy, but I wanted to know how do the Orthodox determine if a Council is Ecumenical or not - because I really don't know. And reading accounts of various groups of Orthodox having different determinations (i.e., is the Council of 879 Ecumenical or not) adds to my confusion. But, I think that this is an important question - since if the Council of 879 is not Ecumenical, its decisions from my perspective are far different than if it is.

Again, I'll try to answer Father Chris' question.

From this Catholic's perspective, it doesn't matter what the Council of 879 decided. Neither the Council of 869 or 879 were determined Ecumenical at the time. Later, the Council of 869 was determined by the Catholic Church was determined to be an Ecumenical Council. Of course, no Council can undo the dogmatic proclamations of an Ecumenical Council nor demote an Ecumenical Council to non-Ecumenical status.

So how do Catholics know if a Council is Ecumenical or not. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia - Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. The condition of papal confirmation is important, for as Lumen Gentium (22) states - there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor.

It is also very possible (most likely) that the Council of 879 was accepted by the Pope (then Pope John VIII). As far as I can tell, the main purpose of the Synod and its acceptance was to heal the schism that had ripped apart the Church. But never was the Council of 879 accepted as Ecumenical by the Catholic Church nor by the majority of the Orthodox Church (again, various Orthodox have different determinations of the Ecumenical Councils).

Does this answer it? Have I understood your question correctly?

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

Some did, some didn't. The main divisive issue was whether Photius or Ignatius should be Patriarch of Constantinople. And each had their own loyal group of support. Regardless of who was right or wrong, that issue was settled in 879 when Photius was determined to be the Patriarch. Of course Ignatius dying in 878 didn't help his chances of remaining in authority . As far as I know, the issue was resolved going into the Council of 879, with the Council being a formality.

Lol. Look, you're actually dodged my point, which was that your comparison to Chalcedon/Alexandria was ill-founded, since that situation was differently constructed. Again - Chalcedon was accepted by the majority, then later rejected by a minority at Alexandria. 869 was accepted by a minority, then rejected by a majority (including the Church of Rome) in 879. I wasn't arguing pro- or con- "879 as Ecumenical," so your argument has nothing to do with my statement.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Some did, some didn't. The main divisive issue was whether Photius or Ignatius should be Patriarch of Constantinople. And each had their own loyal group of support. Regardless of who was right or wrong, that issue was settled in 879 when Photius was determined to be the Patriarch. Of course Ignatius dying in 878 didn't help his chances of remaining in authority . As far as I know, the issue was resolved going into the Council of 879, with the Council being a formality.

(heavy sigh...)

You never did read the Dragas article, did you? From the article, explaining why the Council was held:

Quote

The reference to the Lord, the Apostles and the Fathers as guardians of the true faith clearly imply that what is at stake here is a theological issue.

The 'main rub' was: could the filioque be forced into the Creed by re-interpreting Tradition?

The Horos of this Council clearly explains why the Filioque had always been rejected:

Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

(bolded text mine)

How often have we heard from the West "When did you Orthodox state that the sole generation of the Spirit must be from the Father? You're taking things too far!" And yet, this Horos shows the thinking of the Church at 879: the Creed cannot be tampered with.

The article is clear: Photios was concerned that Rome may buckle to the pressure of the Franks and include the filioque. The Horos was an attempt to reinforce the resistance to this innovation, but eventually Rome did not heed the advice of her brothers, and instead went her own way. This also states why we cannot accept even the 'optional filioque' currently in vogue with Rome.

Additionally, the response of the Bishops to the reading of this Horos shows way doctrinal development such as what we see in the West cannot be part of the Tradition of hte Church:

Quote

We read in the minutes of the Sixth act that after reading the Horos the Bishops shouted:

"Thus we think, thus we believe, into this confession were we baptized and became worthy to enter the priestly orders. We regard, therefore, as enemies of God and of the truth those who think differently as compared to this. If one dares to rewrite another Symbol besides this one, or add to it, or subtract from it, or to remove anything from it, and to display the audacity to call it a Rule, he will be condemned and thrown out of the Christian Confession. For to subtract from, or to add to, the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity shows that the confession we have always had to this day is imperfect. [In other words the problem which is implied but not named has to do with the Trinitarian doctrine]. It condemns the Apostolic Tradition and the doctrine of the Fathers. If one, then having come to such a point of mindlessness as to dare do what we have said above, and set forth another Symbol and call it a Rule, or to add to or subtract from the one which has been handed down to us by the first great, holy and Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, let him be Anathema."

(again, bolded text is mine)

Plus, the 8th Council of 879 is also significant, because it is a reunion Council...prior to this time there was the Photian Schism. To eliminate or ignore this Council is to eliminate the only occason (so far!) that East and West have healed a Schism in a Council.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Lol. Look, you're actually dodged my point, which was that your comparison to Chalcedon/Alexandria was ill-founded, since that situation was differently constructed. Again - Chalcedon was accepted by the majority, then later rejected by a minority at Alexandria. 869 was accepted by a minority, then rejected by a majority (including the Church of Rome) in 879. I wasn't arguing pro- or con- "879 as Ecumenical," so your argument has nothing to do with my statement.

Perhaps we could have a different thread for the discussion of Chalcedon and so remain on topic in this thread.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

Perhaps we could have a different thread for the discussion of Chalcedon and so remain on topic in this thread.

You're going to drive me nuts!

YOU brought up Chalcedon in an attempt to belittle our selection of Ecumencial Synods. I pointed out that your comparison of situation is flawed - I basically was telling you that YOU can't bring up Chalcedon in the context of this discussion, WHICH YOU DID, since the comparison doesn't work.

Now you're telling me that we should discuss Chalcedon elsewhere? I don't want to discuss it, because it's not germane to this topic.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods." The minutes at this point add: "The Holy Synod responded: We have denounced this by our actions and we eject it from the archives and anathematize the so-called [Eighth] Synod, being united to Photios our Most Holy Patriarch. We also anathematize those who fail to eject what was written or said against him by the aforementioned by yourselves, the so-called [Eighth] Synod." (Latin text: Caput 10. Volumus coram praesente synodo pomulgari ut synodus quae facta est contra praedictum patriarcham Photium sub Hadriano sanctissimo Papa in urbe Roma et Constantinopoli ex nunc sit rejecta, irrita, et sine robore; neque connumeretur cum altera sancta synodo. Sancta Synodus respondit: Nos rebus ispsis condemnavimus et abjecimus et anathematizavimus dictam a vobis synodum, uniti Photio sanctissimo nostro Patriarchae: et eos qui non rejiciunt scripta dictave nostra cum in hac dicta a vobis synodo, anathematizamus. Mansi vol. xvii, cl. 472AB. See also cls. 489/490E which repeats these points as accepted by the Synod. See also Dositheos op. cit. p. 345 and p. 361). I have included these texts here because I repeatedly encounter comments in the works of Western scholars, especially Roman Catholics, who offer confusing and even disputed information about the unanimous Eastern and Western condemnation of the anti-Photian Council of 869/870.

(bolded text is mine, since it shows the referenced texts)

The references are probably not on-line, but gives you a start to request from a Library. Hopefully Franciscan at Youngstown should have this and save you the trouble of requesting it.

Of course, I still may have to drive there, find the book, open it for you, and read it aloud to you...

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

The references are probably not on-line, but gives you a start to request from a Library. Hopefully Franciscan at Youngstown should have this and save you the trouble of requesting it.

Of course, I still may have to drive there, find the book, open it for you, and read it aloud to you...

I finally did find that - IN THE ENDNOTES. You can't really blame me for not reading the endnotes, can you?

I think I asked a couple posts ago, but do we know if this was the letter by the Pope to the Council (which wouldn't make sense to me), or a letter by the Pope after the Council, or an address by the legates to the Council?

The article says it was a letter addressed to the Council by the Pope, but that doesn't make sense. How could the Pope affirm a decision by a Synod that hadn't been held yet (remember, this is 879, no modern communications. Any letter would have had to have been brought with the legates on their lengthy trip from Rome)?

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

YOU brought up Chalcedon in an attempt to belittle our selection of Ecumencial Synods. I pointed out that your comparison of situation is flawed - I basically was telling you that YOU can't bring up Chalcedon in the context of this discussion, WHICH YOU DID, since the comparison doesn't work.

Now you're telling me that we should discuss Chalcedon elsewhere? I don't want to discuss it, because it's not germane to this topic.

I know, I know. Mea culpa.

One the one hand, I would love to continue this discussion both on Chalcedon and its meaning for the ecumenicity of Councils and its similarities to the Councils of 869/879. On the other hand, I don't want to derail this thread for a tangent subject.

I can drop the discussion if you like, but I'll leave that decision up to you.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

I think I asked a couple posts ago, but do we know if this was the letter by the Pope to the Council (which wouldn't make sense to me), or a letter by the Pope after the Council, or an address by the legates to the Council?

I'm going to show you how this has been answered in what I quoted for you...the bolded text shows the answer to your question if you would only read it:

Quote

Finally in Pope John VIII's Commonitorium or Mandatum ch. 10, which was read by the papal legates at the third Session of the same Council, we find the following: "We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods."

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us all, as we control our tempers with this young man...

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

I'm going to show you how this has been answered in what I quoted for you...the bolded text shows the answer to your question if you would only read it:

If it was the legates reading a letter, I still don't know how the Pope could affirm a Synod yet to be held.

On another note:

The only paper I have seen the deals exclusively with this topic is the one by Father Dragas - and it is not without its own bias. The one by Dvornik, while it touches on the Councils, it isn't exclusively about them - and it raises more questions than it answers. And I still don't know who he is. In some places he is referred to as Father Dvornik, a Catholic priest; but, I cannot find any reference to him from a Catholic source as a priest.

From what I have researched, there is a bit of confusion surrounding the Council of 879. Schaff comments that the acts make it look like the legates didn't know what they were doing. He further comments that a pretended letter (the one cited above?) was added to the acts. He further comments that when the legates returned, the Pope was not pleased, that the Pope eventually ended up re-excommunicating Photius.

Quote

Photius was restored to the patriarchal see three days after the death of Ignatius, with whom he had been reconciled. He convened a council in November, 879, which lasted till March, 880, and is acknowledged by the Orientals as the Eighth Oecumenical Council,309 but denounced by the Latins as the Pseudo-Synodus Photiana. It was three times as large as the Council of Ignatius, and held with great pomp in St. Sophia under the presidency of Photius. It annulled the Council of 869 as a fraud; it readopted the Nicene Creed with an anathema against the Filioque, and all other changes by addition or omission, and it closed with a eulogy on the unrivalled virtues and learning of Photius. To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII. to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by, degrees.310 The papal legates assented to all, and so deceived their master by false accounts of the surrender of Bulgaria that he thanked the emperor for the service he had done to the Church by this synod.

But when the pope’s eyes were opened, he sent the bishop Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done contrary to his instructions. For this Marinus was shut up in prison for thirty days. After his return Pope John VIII. solemnly pronounced the anathema on Photius, who had dared to deceive and degrade the holy see, and had added new frauds to the old. Marinus renewed the anathema after he was elected pope (882). Photius denied the validity of his election, and developed an extraordinary, literary activity.

NOW you are really reaching. This is becoming a waste of time as you can't see what is obvious to us all - that you are squirming in obfuscation attempts of denial...and now an appeal to Schaff's editorial conjecture and innuendo about 'pretended' letters (a tactic of the west usually).

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

NOW you are really reaching. This is becoming a waste of time as you can't see what is obvious to us all - that you are squirming in obfuscation attempts of denial...and now an appeal to Schaff's editorial conjecture and innuendo about 'pretended' letters (a tactic of the west usually).

I tried to quote from someone who wasn't too biased one way or the other. Being neither Orthodox or Catholic, I felt that he didn't have a hand in the game - so to speak.

It does seem that Photius was again excommunicated soon after the Council by Pope John VIII. The question to ask is why? The legates were punished upon their return (the precise reason and what the punishment were, I am not certain), again why? Maybe this is all coincidence - I don't know. But why?

The idea that I have (which may be incomplete, but from all I have seen so far (which is more then has been presented on this thread), this is what I have deduced) is that the Pope sent the legates to a Council convened to heal the schism that had erupted. The legates, for some reason, went further than they were instructed in their agreements with the Council. When they returned to Rome, the Pope could not agree to what the legates had agreed to. He sent another Bishop to Constantinople, who was detained and when the Bishop finally returned to Rome, the Pope again renewed the excommunication against Photius. Thus the Pope's tacit agreement to the Council, which he originally had intended to declare valid to heal the schism when he sent his legates, was nullified upon the Pope's assessment of the actual Councils decisions.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

Yes, an Imperial Synod summoned by the Emperor that was subsequently upheld as an Imperial Synod also summoned by the Emperor. They very word 'ecumenical' is from Imperial terminology, it was a synod that held the undisputed authority of the Empire. Thus we had 'ecumenical' Emperors, 'ecumenical' synods, 'ecumenical' fathers, 'ecumenical' patriarchs, an 'ecumenical' Church, 'ecumenical' barbers, etc. An 'ecumenical' synod is simply a synod that is consonant with the consensus of the bishops of the Empire.

Actually, no, because many of the bishops came from outside the empire (St. Gregory the Illuminator being one in point), and many inside didn't agree. Not that the emperors didn't try to make imperial=ecumenical=Christian, they did. But the councils reached beyond the empire, whether the 1st or the 7th.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The idea that I have (which may be incomplete, but from all I have seen so far (which is more then has been presented on this thread), this is what I have deduced) is that the Pope sent the legates to a Council convened to heal the schism that had erupted. The legates, for some reason, went further than they were instructed in their agreements with the Council. When they returned to Rome, the Pope could not agree to what the legates had agreed to. He sent another Bishop to Constantinople, who was detained and when the Bishop finally returned to Rome, the Pope again renewed the excommunication against Photius. Thus the Pope's tacit agreement to the Council, which he originally had intended to declare valid to heal the schism when he sent his legates, was nullified upon the Pope's assessment of the actual Councils decisions.

Surely smells of revised history to me.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Maybe if I had access to certain University libraries and such, I could have a more complete view (which may or may not be the one I have expressed) - but given what I have researched here and on the internet, that is what I have deduced to be historically accurate.

For some reason - there are varying reports. Some say that the legates were bullied by Photius and the Council, some say they were incompetent, some say they were treacherous. All I know is that the Pope was not pleased with their conduct at the Council. And for some reason (whatever that reason may actually be) they went beyond the bounds set for them by the Pope.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

But there were further changes to come. The 869-70 council requested the Emperor to resolve the status of the Bulgarian Church, and not surprisingly he decided that it should be assigned to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Realizing that Rome would allow him less independence than Byzantium, Boris accepted this decision. From 870, then, the German missionaries were expelled and the Filioque was heard no more in the confines of Bulgaria. Nor was this all. At Constantinople, Ignatius and Photius were reconciled to one another, and when Ignatius died in 877, Photius once more succeeded him as Patriarch. In 879 yet another council was held in Constantinople, attended by 383 bishops - a notable contrast with the meagre total at the anti-Photian gathering ten years previously. The council of 869 was anathematized and all condemnations of Photius were withdrawn; these decisions were accepted without protest at Rome. So Photius ended victorious, recognized by Rome and ecclesiastically master of Bulgaria. Until recently it was thought that there was a second 'Photian schism', but Dr Dvornik has proved with devastating conclusiveness that this second schism is a myth: in Photius' later period of office (877-86) communion between Constantinople and the Papacy remained unbroken. The Pope at this time, John VIII (872-82), was no friend to the Franks and did not press the question of the Filioque, nor did he attempt to enforce the Papal claims in the east. Perhaps he recognized how seriously the policy of Nicolas had endangered the unity of Christendom.

The next step would be to dig up Dr. Dvornik's book "The Photian Schism" which appears to have become unfortunately rare. I'm not sure if he was a priest or not, but Dr. Dvornik was quite a respected Catholic historian.